Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Didn't anyone notice this?SchuminWeb(T-C-L-K-R-D)
, who has apparently held a grudge against OMM writer Erik Wolpaw, somehow managed to get the Wikipedia article about OMM (an old gaming site) deleted.

Schumin tried before in January. The only vote I can see is from MelanieN(T-C-L-K-R-D)
. Girlfriend? Sock?

Sometimes I wish I could get back money I donated to them. I doubt I'll ever donate to wiki again.

QUOTE

This is standard Wikipedia. It's such a corrupt incestuous sausagefest. 'Free Encyclopedia' my ass.I've given up even trying to bother getting useful info past the neckbeards who run the place - there are just too many hidden toes that are easily trod upon.

You know what should make your scratch your head? The problem you have just described at the same time happens to be the very essence and fundamental principle of Wikipedia. That anyone, including stupid morons, trolls with hidden agenda (competitors), and outright psychopaths can edit it any and every second, repeatedly and infinitely.It follows that Wikipedia is, and has inherently been from the very beginning, a fundamentally flawed experiment. Thanks god Google is starting to realize this and is moving the Wikipedia result to SERPS position #5, while the first 4 links point to the authoritative or official site (if one exists).

QUOTE

I used to contribute a fair amount to Wikipedia to get my brain going in the morning. I quit doing so a couple years ago, because the whole infighting and "notability" crap was ridiculous. Every single character from a book, movie, cartoon, video game, anime (pokemon, etc) gets a many-paged detailed entry while real people quickly get the brush because someone gets a thorn in their ass over something. And those "somethings" are hard to pin down. Some entries surprisingly don't exist, while others (someone with a podcast you've never heard of or who is supposedly some self-described social media expert, etc) gets an entry. That idiot from "Hot For Words" even has a wikipedia entry.

QUOTE

Firstly, I won't be donating to Wikipedia again. This is not because I'm an OMM fanboy taking my bat home in a huff, although I am also that. But actually, it's because this story has made me look into Wikipedia more, and apparently this shit is rife. I guess I should have known that, but I'd always been scared to check because I still had some faith in one human endeavour and was happy to let things stay that way, until I felt some pressing need to know otherwise. Well, game over on that front. Back to total misanthropy for me.Secondly, it's actually quite an interesting read because the Schumin guy who nominated for deletion, is evidently really, really, pathetic. And not in a kind of sad and disappointing, move along cowboy way, but actually to a degree that's almost gripping. This article highlights an almost iconic exemplar of the form of pathetic, to the degree that it's actually compelling.To whit, and as best as I can tell from summaries, a man who is mocked - for being pathetic no less - by a popular gaming culture website waits a DECADE for revenge, whilst the world moves on around him, and the revengee behind the site goes on to pen dialogue for a video game that many people rightly consider one of the genuinely enduring classics of the new age.

I've seen a lot of buzz about this on gaming forums.

Mr. Schumin is quite the classic Wikipedia admin-troll. Look at the vote in his 2007 RFA.Now look at the vote when he first tried in 2006. There are numerous complaints about him in AN/I and Wikiquette.And btw, he cooperates with Cirt when Scientology articles come up.....

I don't really get the big deal of the "COI" complaint angle. If he'd just up and blown it away via fiat, sure, that'd be a prob. But just initiating a deletion discussion? No, you still need to convince others of the merits of the deletion. The whys, hows, and whos of who started an AfD rarely come in to play.

I don't wanna cross-pollute topics too much here, but the Wikipe-tan nominator was just blocked as some sock today, but the debate still goes on, validly.

When the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed in 1940, there was a careful examination towards cause. The film taken of the event -- youtube it -- still sends shivers down the spine of any engineer worthy of the title. Ever since, new designs are very carefully checked to make sure they were not subject to the same design flaw.

Seems to have worked so far: probably hundreds of new bridges since, and none have collapsed in the same way.

Funny how engineering works, eh?

Now, if you really think your pasting more lipstick onto the pig are in any way "design improvements" in the same vein, you are beyond hope.

TW was so busy bitching out Seren, that neither one of them noted something important:

The news coverage of this (the Boing Boing and Slashdot articles) were followed with a considerablenumber of comments. Comments that, for the first time I can recall, attacked Wikipedia's internalculture for corruption and insanity.

And there was (some) coverage of this on gaming blogs/forums. For example:RockPaperShotgunCaltrops (complete with the comment aimed at Schumin: "You fucked with the wrong website, you disgustingly obese nobody. ")Penny Arcade

The gamer natives are restless, Seren. This little episode, despite a "favorable" result to inclusionists,has garnered a lot of the wrong kind of attention among gamers.

And if you ever need proof that Wikipedia's admin forces contain some amazingly pathetic specimens......look at Schumin's website. It's been up since 1996, and it looks as if he hasn't improved it since 1996.

Interesting: this. And this, and this and this.He spends a LOT of time on his journal ranting about his activities, protesting the CoS.

Personally I'm fine with that, I dislike the CoS as much as anyone. But seriously, if I were a member ofAnonymous, I'd be embarrassed to have a clod like Ben Schumin in the group.

I won't go into details, but *coughs* Anonymous is embarrassed that he's a member.

I think the main point that people need to understand though is that anyone can put something up for deletion. And a number of people have all agreed, evidenced by the deletion review discussion, that the closing admin was dead wrong in his decision. The actions of those two, Schumin especially, are not representative of Wikipedia. It would be different if OMM stayed deleted, but it didn't, the decision was reversed.

And, as at least some of the people in those discussion are pointing out, the Rock, Paper, Shotgun one especially, it would be helpful if news website actually covered these things if they are notable and important. The fact that there is not that much about Old Man Murray (though more stuff now thanks to this incident) is not the fault of Wikipedia, but the gaming news industry itself.

Edit: What am I supposed to be seeing here? He didn't really add any content, he just rearranged some sentences and moved the references that were in a list at the bottom of the page in as inline references.

Isn't it interesting that Wolpaw's partner in OMM and at Valve, Chet Faliszek, doesn't have a Wikipedia BLP?As one of the primary authors of both Portal and the Left 4 Dead franchise, I'd think Chet was "notable". Google him if you don't believe me.

I wonder if Schumin's thinking about deleting the Laidlaw, Portal and Left 4 Dead articles, also.

Ben Schumin is a very smug "little" man, and keeping him in the Wikipedia admin ranks is a really, really bad idea, okay?